Share this:

General Manager of Public Employees Union Peter Nguyen, right, of Local 1, hands over containers of petitions to Chief County Administrator Terry Speiker, center, and Senior Deputy County Administrator Julie Enea, right, at the County Administration Building in Martinez,Calif., on Friday, Jan. 2, 2015. The petition is calling for a referendum on the 33 percent raise supervisors voted themselves in November 2014. (Dan Rosenstrauch/Bay Area News Group)

Members of Public Employees Union Local 1 carry containers of petitions to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors office at the County Administration Building in Martinez,Calif., Friday, Jan. 2, 2015. The petition is calling for a referendum on the 33 percent raise supervisors voted themselves in November 2014. (Dan Rosenstrauch/Bay Area News Group)

Members of Public Employees Union Local 1, Laura Ghione, left, and Saad Muhammad, right, stack containers of petitions in front of the County Administration Building in Martinez,Calif., Friday, Jan. 2, 2015. The petition is calling for a referendum on the 33 percent raise supervisors voted themselves in November 2014. (Dan Rosenstrauch/Bay Area News Group)

MARTINEZ — Faced with a public backlash, a majority of Contra Costa County supervisors said Friday they are prepared to rescind a 33 percent pay hike for themselves that was approved last year.

On the same day that county union employees submitted nearly 40,000 signatures seeking to rescind the raise, three county supervisors indicated they are willing to do just that.

“I would expect that would be the likely outcome,” said John Gioia, the board’s vice chairman.

Gioia, of Richmond, said the supervisors’ Tuesday meeting will be devoted to board reorganization, during which he presumably will be elected chairman. He said his intent is to place the issue on the Jan. 13 agenda.

“We respect the process and public opinion,” he said. “The right course of action is to rescind as soon as possible.”

Current board Chairwoman Karen Mitchoff, of Pleasant Hill, said she also anticipates the board will rescind the raise Jan. 13. Only three votes are needed, and Supervisor Candace Anderson, who was the lone dissenter in the October vote authorizing the raise, reiterated Friday that she remains opposed to the raise.

The supervisors’ decision to tie their salaries to 70 percent of Superior Court judges’ compensation sparked widespread backlash by county worker and taxpayers groups.

“While we want to give them credit, it never should have come to this,” said Peter Nguyen, general manager of Local 1, the largest county public employee union. “That’s the right thing to do. Maybe this is an entree into a different era for the board.”

On Friday morning, Nguyen and approximately two dozen other union members — some holding signs reading “When was your last 33 percent raise?” — gathered outside the County Administration Building bearing 15 plastic bins of signed petitions calling for a referendum on the raise.

“The workers in this county who have made sacrifices for the past seven years have reason to be outraged,” Nguyen told the group. “We answered the call. The most we got was 4 percent. Then the supervisors stepped to the front of the line.”

Supervisors on Oct. 28 voted 4-1 to spike their annual pay from $97,476 to $129,216 effective this month. Andersen, of Danville, has declined anything more than a 4 percent increase.

The board finalized the raise Nov. 4. By filing the petitions, Nguyen said, the unions placed in abeyance the increase, which would have become effective next week.

To be successful, the referendum requires 25,400 valid signatures — 10 percent of the certified votes cast within the county in the most recent gubernatorial election. A total of 39,222 were delivered to employees of the Clerk of the board of supervisors for verification.

“If the (signature) numbers prove correct,” said Mitchoff, “then I would think we will take it up and move to rescind the ordinance and give direction for a new ordinance.”

A referendum would force the supervisors to reconsider the ordinance at a future board meeting. If they declined to rescind the raise, a special election would be called within 88 days of the meeting.

“If they don’t do this, the voters will get a chance to address it,” said Nguyen, who estimated that a special election would cost $2.3 million.

Gioia also was mindful of the potential cost to taxpayers. “The first step is to rescind before more county resources are expended,” he said.

But, Gioia said, the issue of supervisors’ compensation, and the manner in which it is determined, would still be at issue.

“We are the lowest-paid of any urban county in the state,” Gioia said.

He added that the supervisors would seek to have their wage linked to an economic index so they don’t have to vote on their own salaries.